Bike lanes: a new commitment to Edmontonians
The question for many in the cycling community following City Council’s decision to remove bike lanes on both 95th and 40th Avenues is: what now?
On the surface, it felt like a step backwards for a city that had made some positive strides in offering residents transportation options other than the four-wheeled variety. Mixed signals were a concern I had during the debate over the removal of these lanes, and it’s a concern I still have. I was also troubled by the costs the City would be incurring – a total of $1.375 million from the road maintenance budget – thinking this money would be much better spent either on paving roads (or planning better lanes) rather than removing bike lanes.
However, all is not lost for cyclists in Edmonton.
The Councillor who promoted the removal motions argued that this isn’t about eliminating bike lanes but about adding more effective ones built to a higher standard.
I will work with these folks and city staff to ensure that Council follows through on this commitment.
In that vein, City Council’s motion on Wednesday included direction to Administration that staff:
…provide to Council through Transportation Committee, a proposed revised bicycle transportation implementation strategy to include plans for a high quality (segregated from traffic) network of cycle infrastructure and neighbourhood (local road) routes informed by the 2015-2018 Bike Lane Infrastructure Plan enhanced public engagement strategies [previously] approved by Council…
Council also voted to create a new Active Transportation Council Initiative to ensure this topic remains forefront in Council’s decision-making going forward. However we go about it, there is a clear need to ensure our Administration and our Council are guided by, and accountsble to, the goals outlined in the Way We Green, the Energy Transition Strategy and our Active Transportation Policy. There should be no confusion about City Council’s direction or priorities going forward.
Wednesday’s motions should raise the expectations of the cycling community, and raise the expectations of Edmontonians in general, that the City is committed to doing better. More importantly, that we will do it sooner rather than later. To say we are lagging behind other cities in our active transportation infrastructure would be an enormous understatement. But on Wednesday, City Council offered a bold commitment to Edmontonians about the standard we should aspire to for cycling infrastructure.
My expectation is that Council’s statements about implementing the next generation of spaces must be quickly followed with action.
10 thoughts on “Bike lanes: a new commitment to Edmontonians”
Comments are closed.
My thoughts are that “share the road” should be changed to “share the sidewalk”. There are hundreds of km of sidewalk in our city (most used sparingly). When a cyclist approaches pedestrians they would dismount and then resume cycling after passing the pedestrians. On places like Whyte ave the would walk their bikes…its all about exercise right? This would save the city millions of dollars and would be a lot safer. Which is safer..sharing with pedestrians or sharing with cars and cement trucks?
Wow, what a lack of understanding of the issue, Rick. It’s not “all about exercise”, it’s about transportation and efficient transportation at that. Cyclists having to stop every time they encounter a pedestrian and walking their bikes entirely on certain streets totally defeats the purpose of cycling as efficient transportation. I can only assume you are joking or trolling.
The sidewalks are far more safe for cyclists than the existing bike lanes. Have nearly been smoked many times ridin on bikes lanes.
All the planning and development of bike lanes is a waste of tax payers money. Cyclists, like me, use the side streets. When I get to Whyte Ave, I walk my bike.
We are a winter City. I ride in the winter and just bought a fatty so I no longer wipe out. But how many cyclists actually ride in the winter?
The best analogy is as follows. Envision a big jar full of jelly beans. Take the tips of your two fingers and thumb and take out a few jelly beans. The big jar of jelly beans represents those opposed to this bike corridor nonsense. These are voters and tax payers whose neighborhoods are being invaded/changed by the decisions of the City who don’t even live in them. There is no democratic process regarding the right to have a say or vote on this.
The three digit jelly beans represents the very few who ride in the winter or use bike lanes in the summer.
Really? How many people are going to take their young kids for rides on busy streets with bike lanes? Waaaaaay too dangerous.
I know a ton of bikers who think the same way.
This bike concept is going to backfire and fail and our tax dollars will be up in flames again just like the barricades that were placed on 109 Street in Pleasant View.
I agree with the majority that bikes should be on the sidewalks. The city administration is doing everything possible to make our downtown hostile towards vehicles which is fraying everyone’s nerves and someone is going to get hurt, or killed because of it.
Jasper Ave abruptly narrows to one lane between 100 and 102 streets, most of 102 ave will be lost to LRT, 107 st will be lost to LRT, some of 104 ave west of 107 st will be lost to LRT, curb side turning lanes have been destroyed by those sidewalk corners things.
The only logic demonstrated by our city planners is traffic mayhem.
It’s all about doing it right. The bike lanes on 106st and 76ave don’t work because they are poorly planned. The lanes are confusing for cyclist and motorists alike. No one will feel safe without some barrier between the cars and themselves. As it stands now I wouldn’t let a child on the road. And as far as people using bikes in the winter many don’t do it because roads are not properly maintained and an absence of bike lanes do make it a daunting proposition. But if we build proper bike lanes and think about the idea of sharing the roads with vehicles equally we should very well begin to see more people biking even during the winter. Build it and they will come.
Don Iveson wants to put the 5-12% who use bikes for their transportation above those who drive cars and account for more than 80% of commuters. Let’s stop the war on people who are older and not able to bike! Using sidewalks to bike would be a reasonable answer, The odd side of ave/ st for pedestrians and the even side for bikes.It makes way too much sense for the like of Oops Iveson to follow.
Thanks Mayor Iveson for continuing to make bike transit a priority in Edmonton. You are right that our city lags behind when it comes to bike infrastructure and I am glad that the city is still committed to improving the situation.
I’d first like to address the comments above about “the majority” who feel that bikes should be relegated to sidewalks. Bikes on sidewalks will not work. Not only because it is unsafe for pedestrians, but because sidewalks are not built to be biked on at any reasonable rate of speed, and because they interact with the road at every intersection. I know a number of cyclists who have been hit by cars while attempting to cross street intersections from sidewalks. They are not safer and anyone who suggests they are a reasonable solution for our city is ill-informed. No major cities with decent bike infrastructure use shared pedestrian/cycle sidewalks as their major bike routes.
I’d also like to mention the 106 Street route, which I use (by both car and bike) almost every day. While far from perfect, it is absolutely preferable to riding on 109st or Gateway, and also better than picking one’s way through the residential streets on either side. One major problem is the condition of the roads, which have many potholes. Another problem is the design of the route, which is a compromise to conserve parking spaces while attempting to create a bike corridor that is about 50% shared with car lanes. This type of compromise solution doesn’t work. We need dedicated bike routes that are separated from roads and sidewalks, ideally with a physical separation but at least with a painted line. Weaving back and forth between shared and separated is a lose-lose proposition and creates confusion for everyone.
The city needs a system of interconnected, dedicated bike routes on or parallel to select city roads where car traffic impacts can be mitigated by the presence of reasonable alternative routes. We all need to share the city’s infrastructure, let’s be smart about it.
It’s not so much the fact that anyone is putting cyclists above cars or a minority above a majority. It’s also not that the city is trying to make the downtown core ‘hostile’ to people who drive their cars. This is all in an effort to provide efficient options to getting around the city in something other than a vehicle. Edmonton needs to move forward as a city towards more efficient, energy saving ways to get around and this is one of the most obvious ways. If motorists continue to oppose cyclists using the roads we as a city will never move forward and cycling will continue to be as dangerous as it is.
Cyclists sharing the sidewalk with pedestrians is an absurd idea that, like Jen said, completely defeats the purpose of using a bicycle for efficient transportation. Bike lanes need to be put in for the safety of everyone involved but the key is not putting them on main roadways. Use side streets especially downtown/around Old Strathcona and clearly mark the lanes so that everyone is safe. The car culture of Edmonton needs to be questioned and ‘greener’ alternatives need to be given a chance, it’s 2016, cars shouldn’t be the only thing on the road anymore.
As someone who bikes to work 50% of the time I’m thankful that you’re giving this issue attention, but as someone who drives the other 50% of the time I really hope you think this through and do it right. Driving in this city may not be as bad as other cities, but driving in traffic sucks! Don’t make a bad situation worse by replacing traffic lanes with bike lanes that will be under utilized.
For example, lots of people seem to support taking out a traffic lane from whyte ave and replacing it with a bike lane, but I think this comes from an emotional place rather than a logical one. Whyte ave is a major east west transportation corridor, and there aren’t alternatives for cars nearby. If we put a separated bike lane on 83rd ave instead, cyclists won’t have to deal with high pedestrian or vehicle traffic, and we save the vehicle lane on whyte. If you turn all the yield signs on 83rd to give priority to that bike lane you actually give cyclists a more efficient route than whyte ave while minimally inconveniently motorists. I think the focus should be on finding places where people can bike to work with minimal contact with cars. Multi use trails are great for this.
To those of you suggesting that people should ride on the sidewalks, I don’t entirely disagree, but you need to understand that there are different kinds of cyclists. If I’m riding to work at 30 km/h, I can’t do that on a sidewalk. I think there might be opportunities downtown to remove some sidewalk and replace it with smooth separated bike lanes. That might give the best of both worlds.